The Light Touch (1951)

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Producer: Pandro S. Berman. Copyright 26 October 1951 by Loew's Inc. A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. New York opening at the Capitol: 16 January 1952. U.S. release: 7 December 1951. U.K. release: 12 January 1952. Australian release: 3 March 1952. 9,613 feet. 107 minutes. Cut to 93 minutes in the U.S.A. and Australia.SYNOPSIS: Two unscrupulous international art dealers and an unsuspecting young artist are involved in the theft of a religious painting. Setting: Italy, Sicily, and Tunis. — Copyright summary.COMMENT: An art theft drama is nothing new, but this one commences promisingly. Unfortunately, it quickly but firmly deteriorates into a routine rival gangsters fall-out with each other scenario, and that time-worn scenario then leads to a climax of sheer bathos.It's a shame to find competent players like George Sanders, Mike Mazurki and sleepy-eyed Norman Lloyd, involved in this tedious, slow-paced movie. True, all three deliver wonderfully skilled impersonations of villainy, but all their good work is mostly upset by the slow-paced direction of Richard Brooks, plus the presence of both Stewart Granger and Pier Angeli. For some reason – maybe Granger simply couldn't get along with Dick Brooks. Anyway, this so-called Light Touch was only Brooks' second movie and no doubt he was still finding his way, although he had handled both his writing and directing chores with admirable distinction in Crisis. Or maybe Brooks and producer, Pan Berman, just didn't get along. But whatever the cause of the problem, Granger just walks through his role for the money. And as for the lovely Pier Angeli, acting-wise she is a total disaster.OTHER VIEWS: The leading players adhere to conflicting styles: Pier Angeli gives a natural and charming performance which emphasizes the story's more serious side; Sanders is artificial, mannered and occasionally amusing; Granger brings little humor to his part and makes Conride all too convincingly unsympathetic. - Penelope Houston.

Why do people feel the need to outline the plot, bandy about cast and crew names like they are insiders, mouth trade lingo and generally attempt to ape professional critics they have read or heard?? We can read all that stuff on the credits and from the places they lifted it. We have search engines on our computers too. I understand that real person reviews are solicited here, maybe with some sharing of things learned about the film. But, how about referencing the source so others can evaluate it on that basis. I think people mostly come here to find out what a regular viewer thought of the film.On the film, I know it is not the best done by the actors. But I feel that when you like an actor, you like him/her in even a lesser movie. Enjoyed the combination of Granger and Sanders enough to want to watch and re-watch the movie just for that. To me, they have styles that are ever so delightful to watch in combo.

Richard Brooks wrote and directed this early example of the caper film. Stewart Granger plays a canny art thief who, with the help of an innocent Pier Angeli, tries to pawn off a reproduction to his client, Kurt Kaszner. The story is admittedly thin but there's some great repartee, especially amongst the troika of bad guys played by George Sanders, Norman Lloyd, and Mike Mazurki. And really, how can you go wrong with a threesome that sinister? Robert Surtees' cinematography is excellent and takes reasonable advantage of location work in Italy, Sicily, and Tunisia. All in all, its better than you might think (and certainly better than the other two reviews for the film indicate).

This could have been a reasonably good picture. Plot is fairly decent and location shooting is an added dimension. It is writer/director Richard Brooks second attempt at direction -- he got better. Stewart Granger has been better. The age difference between Grander and the young and naive Pier Angeli is simply too great and does not work like it did with Gary Cooper and Audrey Hepburn in "Love in the Afternoon." Kurt Kasznar is probably working as hard as he could in his first film since appearing as an uncredited child star, but I could have seen Sydney Greenstreet in his role instead (had that legendary actor not been done with films). I liked George Sanders -- but I ususally like him in almost anything. He is the one saving grace to the film. Joseph Calleia does a good job but see him instead as Sgt. Pete Menzies in "Touch of Evil." Same with Mike Mazurki -- see him as "the" Moose Malloy in "Murder My Sweet" instead. "E" web site says the film is not available on tape or DVD and does not provide you an opportunity to vote for it. Not much to recommend.